5. Arguments For and Against Further Research
It may have become apparent from the proceeding critical discussion
of earlier research that the problem of biological transmutation
has not been solved, either in a positive or in a negative sense.
The main motivating force for renewed research is undoubtedly the
conviction that the earlier work had not completely exploited all
the experimental possibilities in this area. In itself this need
not be a reason to start such new research. There are also a number
of arguments of a theoretical nature that on the whole argue
against biological transmutation and which may make further
research seem pointless. Digressions from the classical laws of
conservation would have paradoxical or even absurd consequences for
the whole system of nature [as constructed by theoretical physics,
the predictions of which are increasingly being experimentally
confirmed].
Two arguments push themselves to the fore:
- It is to be considered as an incontrovertible fact that the
plant for its growth and development depends on the supply of
mineral components from outside [so believe conventional
scientists]. On the basis of this it is hard to understand what
sense can be attributed to the further creation of elements already
supplied [an argument independently used by Michel Haring regarding
algae (personal communication)].
- A consequence of a continuous transmutation by means of the
living plant is that the whole soil could change through plant
growth alone. [This they are well known to do, in conjunction with
other soil organisms; but they are only known to be able to alter
the distribution and composition of chemical elements and their
compounds. Consider, for example, the alleged consequences of the
evolution of the first green plants and their production of free,
gaseous, oxygen where none had existed before; the present day
fixation of nitrogen, by plants, from the air; and the soil
formative powers of plant roots, earthworms, and innumerable other
soil fungi and micro-organisms in general, without which our soils
as we know them today would not exist. What Holleman refers to here
though, are the consequences of hypothesised transmutation, or even
creation (and/or destruction) of chemical elements, leading to
fundamental, irreversible changes in the elemental composition of
the soil and thereby of the Earth itself; see section 6.3.3 for further details]. Although one
could imagine such a shift in the composition of the earth in its
earliest days of existence when the relative proportions of
everything were different, for the present age such a process is
hard to imagine and is probably in contradiction to all existing
experience in the field of agriculture [and biology in general; see
however, Kervran(1972)].
Now the question is whether within the overall tendencies of
plant physiology, which seem to meet the laws of the inorganic
world, finer sub-processes occur which escape direct observation
[see section 10]. In spite of everything that
can be argued against a deviation from the usual way of thinking,
it is not unthinkable that within the framework of the normal
physiological laws, sub-processes happen in which transmutations
occur. These could have a meaningful function in the life
process, for instance by means of the formation of an as yet
unknown isotope of an element [indication from Steiner (1924) and Koenig
(1982) ; see also section 10.1.5.4]
that is needed for the development of an organism. The first
counter argument is therefore less pressing than it initially
appears. When in addition such sub-processes may be considered as
being reversible, so that a conversion in a particular stage of
the organic development process is reversed in another stage,
then the weight of the second counter argument also diminishes;
there is no need to fear a geo-chemical catastrophe[!].
- A much weightier objection relates to the energy changes in the
case of transmutations. In the inorganic world transmutations
usually only take place through the supply of considerable energy
in the form of radiation of various sorts [or phenomenally high
temperatures such as are found in the centres of stars or
supernovae]. It is assumed that for such processes a very high
energy threshold has to be crossed. Yet also in this case the
possibility is given of a transmutation under much smaller energy
changes by means of the so called tunnel effect. [Though
theoretically possible, it is, according to the same theory, very,
very, highly improbable (see Zvirblis, 1977). Nevertheless, in an interview with the professor and director of
organic chemistry Pierre Barranger for the journal
Science et Vie
in 1959, who apparently had conducted extensive replications of the
transmutation research of Herzeele, the analogy of the nucleus of
an atom as a strong box, or safe was used; difficult to break open
using blind violence, but easily opened by skilful manipulation
(quoted from Tomkins and Bird, 1989)].
An attempt at a rational explanation of transmutations in the
living cell was made by Goldfein (1978). He
based his deductions on the transmutations which Kervran postulated and which Komaki is supposed to have experimentally proved.
These transformations, for example 39K19
into 40Ca20, are supposed to be able to
happen totally under energy gain and therefore spontaneously [!].
The localisation of these processes is to be found, according to
Goldfein, in the mitochondria. He supposed that within these
organelles a magnesium compound of adenosinetriphosphate functions
as the microscopic model for a cyclotron within which there is an
acceleration of ions which is sufficient to cause a transmutation.
The author concluded that hereby a new source of energy was in
reach and actually of unlimited capacity!
The model has not been worked out in detail by Goldfein; it is also
very much a question whether, along the lines of his very daring
hypothesis, a correct idea of biological transmutation can ever be
found. [Whether Holleman here considers that any hypothesis based
on nuclear chemistry is doomed to failure, or merely that this
hypothesis fails to answer a number of fundamental questions posed
by conventional nuclear physics (e.g. de Gee,
1973; Zvirblis, 1977), is not clear].
However, the article had the merit that it focused attention on the
possibilities which can hide behind the enormous multiplicity of
biochemical reactions that occur in a living plant.
When one reviews the whole of biological transmutation research
(which has been going on for more than a century), one has no other
possibility than either to put the whole problem aside as
pointless, or to devote oneself - removed from theoretical
considerations - to renewed research, using modern techniques, on
the factual [empirical] background to this as yet unsolved
problem.